Talk:2nd New Zealand Division

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

3rd division withdrawal[edit]

Casualities were so heavy that the 3rd New Zealand Division, then fighting in the Pacific region against the Japanese, was demobilized with the bulk of its officers and men then transferred to the 2nd NZ Division to replace losses. Following two assaults on Monte Casino, the NZ Division was employed as an Assault Division of the 8th Army during a series of difficult night attacks crossing major Italian rivers, behind which the Germans had erected their defensive lines. The closing weeks of WW2 saw the NZ Division race to Trieste in northern Italy to confront Tito’s partisans, and prevent that city’s forced absorption into greater Yugoslavia.

One member of the NZ Division, Captain Charles Upham VC and Bar, was the only person to be awarded the Victoria Cross twice during WW2. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.167.113.20 (talkcontribs) 03:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The third division was not withdrawn due to 2nd Division losses. It was withdrawn primarily to provide additional man power for the agricultural industry. This man power issue may be indirectly related to 2nd NZ Divisions losses, and it was certainly a poor decision in that virtually none of the third division troops went to work in agriculture. Many did indeed go on to provide experienced replacements in Italy. Nevertheless it is historically incorrect to say the 3rd Divsion was withdrawn to replace 2nd Division losses. Regarding man power to field a division, it might be interesting to consider how many "home" divisons the New Zealand army had - granted half these troops existed on paper. WW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winstonwolfe (talkcontribs) 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
One is encouraged to sign comment on a talk page with ~~~~ which will be turned in to a name and date stamp.

home divisions[edit]

If you have a list of the "home" divisions please add them to List of New Zealand divite==sions in World War II --Philip Baird Shearer 10:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template[edit]

The template => Command structure of the 2nd Division (New Zealand seems to be messed up, I can't find the source to fix it. Could someone more knowledgeable have a go please? Ta GrahamBould (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

El Alamein[edit]

The text contains a statement "As no armoured support was available to the Division after their night attack against the Germans at Ruweisat Ridge, a full brigade (3,000 men) was lost during the fighting that resulted when German Panzers counter-attacked the New Zealand infantry the following morning." Some comments:

  • I added some more information regarding the role of the 9th Armd Bde.
  • I'm fairly certain this action was at Miteiriya and not Ruweisat Ridge, if we are referring to the same action! The Miteiriya action was where the 9th Armd Bde "failed" to provide support and were themselves virtually destroyed, which was on 1 and 2 Nov 42 (Ref: Carver, M. El Alamein. Pg 147-150);
  • Although the New Zealanders suffered heavy losses in this action, are we certain that an entire infantry (implied) brigade was destroyed? A reliable citation for that would be most valuable. Farawayman (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The above has been resolved by an edit done by Bucksot06! Farawayman (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Some possible improvements[edit]

I have done some minor Manual of Style work on the article and feel that it could be brought up to a B or maybe even a GA class article if the following points were addressed. (I don't have any sources, so I can't really do much with it, sorry).

  • Referencing: needs at least one citation per paragraph for a B class assessment;
  • Coverage: could probably be improved by moving the discussion about the Division's formation out of the lead and putting it into its own section and expanding, plus adding more context to some of the sections (Defence of Greece and Battle of Crete are possibly a bit small)
  • Style:
    • There is some inconsistency in terms, e.g. World War II is used as is Second World War (it probably doesn't matter which is used, so long as it is used throughout);
    • There is some inconsistency in unit designations, e.g. 28 or 28th Battalion, also Fifth Army or 5th Army;
    • Some of the headings do not conform with the MOS in terms of capitalisation and use of the word 'The'
    • The books in the References section need ISBNs if possible;
  • Grammar: In the El Alamein, the last sentence needs tweaking, repeated 'howevers' and word 'sacrifice' might need to be changed;
  • Supporting materials: Are there any images that could be added to the text, (although the use of infoboxes does satisfy the supporting material requirement);

Just some ideas. Hope this helps. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)